SEMANTICS AND PRAGMATICS

Language is a very important communication system for human beings. Language is a

tool of human communication that cannot be separated from the meaning or meaning in every
word spoken. As a dynamic element, languages are analyzed and analyzed using various
approaches to study them. Among other approaches that can be used to study the language is the
approach of meaning. Semantics is one of the linguistic fields that learn about meaning.
The word semantic comes from the Greek sema meaning sign or symbol (sign).
According to Chaer (1994: 2) state that Semantics was first used by a French philologist named
Michel Breal in 1883. The semantic word was then agreed upon as a term used for the field of
linguistics that studies the linguistic signs with the things it marks. Therefore, the word semantics
can be interpreted as the science of meaning or meaning, i.e. one of the three levels of language
analysis: phonology, grammar, and semantics.
The field of linguistic studies whose object of research is the meaning of language is a linguistic
level. Semantics with their objects of meaning are located throughout or at all these constructive
levels: meaning lies within phonological, morphological and syntactic levels. Semantics is not a
single level in the sense of the larger element of the builder of the other units, but the element
that lies at all levels, even though the nature of existence at each level is not the same.
According to Mansoer Pateda (2001: 79) that the term meaning is a confusing word and
term. The meaning is always united in the speech of words and sentences. There are several
types of meanings, including lexical meanings, grammatical meanings, denotation meanings, and
connotation meanings. In addition, there are also so-called relations of meaning i.e. Relationship
of meaning is a semantic relationship that exists between the units of one language with the other
language units.
Language is the most effective communication medium used by humans to interact with
other individuals. The language used in interacting in our daily life varies greatly in shape, both
in terms of function and form. The use of language used by the community in interacting of
course cannot be separated from the use of words or phrases that lead to meaning, which is the
scope of semantics.
Definition of Semantic
Semantics is a linguistic branch associated with the meaning of words, phrases and
sentences, but contrary to pragmatics, it does not analyze the meaning of the intended speaker, or
what words are indicated on an occasion, but its purpose, conventional meaning. The semantic
role describes the way words are used in the sentences and functions they fulfill.
As Palmer (1974: 1) "semantics is a technical term used to study meaning, and because
meaning becomes part of language, semantic meaning is part of linguistic.”
Chaer (1989: 60) states that in the semantics discussed is the relationship between words
with the concept or meaning of the word, as well as objects or things referenced by the meaning
that is outside the language. The meaning of a word, phrase or discourse is determined by the
context.
Semantics is part of the language structure that is related to the meaning of expression
and with the structure of the meaning of a speech. Meaning is the purpose of speech, the
influence of the language unit in perception comprehension, as well as human or group behavior.
The meaning of the word is the field of study discussed in semantics. Various types of word
meaning are examined in semantic science. The connotative meaning is one of the types of
meaning present in the semantic study. Connotative meaning is a meaning that is not true. The
connotative meaning is contained in a clause.
Semantics implies the study of meaning. Studies that study meaning are part of
linguistics. Like sound and grammar, the component of meaning in this case also occupies a
certain level. That is, if the sound component occupies first, grammar at the second level while
the meaning component occupies the last level. The relation of these three components is
because language is originally abstract sounds in symbols that have a linguistic order having
forms and relationships that associate meaning.
Thus, semantics is the study of symbols or signs expressing meaning, meaning of
relationships with one another, and their influence on people and society. Therefore, semantics
include the meanings of the word, its development and its changes.
 THE SCOPE OF SEMANTIC

1. Definition of Meaning
According to Nurhayati (2009: 3) "The meaning of the word is the field of study
discussed in semantic science". Semantics is a branch of linguistics that studies the meaning of a
word in language, while linguistics is the study of spoken and written language that has
systematic, rational, empirical features as a description of the structure and rules of language.
Based on the above opinion can be concluded that the meaning of a word in the language can be
known with the basis of semantic science.
Hornby (1989: 45) argues that meaning is what we mean or what we mean.
Poerwadarminta (in Pateda, 1989: 45) says the meaning: meaning or purpose. Pateda (2001: 82)
means the meaning: (1) meaning: it takes into account the meaning of every word contained in
the ancient writings, (2) the speaker's intent or the author, (3) the notion given to a linguistic
form. Thus, it can be seen that the three main elements are included, namely (1) meaning is the
result of the relationship between the language and the outside world, (2) the determination of
the relationship occurs because of the agreement of the user, and (3) the embodiment of that
meaning can be used to convey information so it can be mutually understandable.
In the semantic field the term commonly used for the linguistic sign is lexeme, which is
commonly defined as a word or phrase which is a meaningful unit. According to him, not all
words or lexeme have a concrete reference in the real world. For example lexeme such as
religion, love, culture, and justice cannot be displayed in concrete reference. In its use in speech,
the real meaning of the word or lexeme is often and perhaps also, irrespective of the underlying
notion or concept and also of its reference. Suppose the word crocodile in the sentence. The
crocodile base, his own mother deceived him. Therefore, it can determine the meaning of a word
when the word is already in the context of the sentence. The meaning of a sentence can be
determined if the sentence is in the context of the discourse or the context of the situation.
According to Verhaar (1996: 85) "meaning into three aspects, namely grammatical
meaning, lexical and contextual meaning". Grammatical meaning is the investigation of the
meaning of language by suppressing relationships in various grammatical levels. Grammatical
meanings relate to the broader syntactic unit meaning of the word. While the lexical meaning is
the investigation of the meaning of the elements of one language vocabulary. In general, lexical
meanings relate to the meaning of words and meanings of relationships between words. The field
that examines the lexical semantics according to its principles is called lexicology. While the
meaning of so-called contextual meaning is the meaning of a lexeme or word that is in one
context, including also can be related to the situation, or in other words contextual meaning is the
meaning based on the relationship between the utterances.
Thus, it can be concluded that the definition of meaning is very difficult to determine
because each language user has different abilities and perspective in interpreting an utterance or
a word. However, to interpret a sentence still needs to be considered in the context of the
discourse or situation.

2. Kinds of Meaning
Implicit in a semantic view as a study of the sense-connection or condition of truth is the
assumption that it is related to factual information or with a proposition of right or wrong.
One aspect of meaning to be considered is cognitive, ideational, denotational or
propositional. We should not say the main function of language is to provide information, to
inform listeners or readers of facts that they do not yet know the truth. There are many
ideational, but interpersonal or social meanings associated with this. There are several ways in
which we can see that language is not just a matter of providing factual information.
First, we ask questions and give orders. Indeed, most grammars, language reflects
differences with imperative forms and questions. For example, you will come tomorrow. We can
easily handle this question in terms of information, because they are really asking for
information, thus having an ideational meaning.
Secondly, there are various speeches today. As we persuade, we warn, we quip, we use
language, meaning to influence others in various ways. This is the first aspect of language that a
child learns by using his screams, he can attract the attention of others and so can the correct
speech can manipulate an adult to feed him, and so on. The relation of this aspect to the
ideational meaning is not at all clear.
The language is used for various activities and necessities in social life, and then the
meaning of the language also becomes diverse in terms of views and different views. According
to Verhaar (1996: 85) that the meaning has three aspects of which are grammatical meanings,
lexical meanings, and contextual meanings. Grammatical meaning is the investigation of the
meaning of language by suppressing relationships in various grammatical levels. Grammatical
meanings relate to the broader syntactic meaning of the word. While the lexical meaning is the
investigation of the meaning of the elements of one language vocabulary. Generally, lexical
meanings relate to the meaning of words and meanings of relationships between words. The field
that examines the lexical semantics is called lexicology. While the meaning of so-called
contextual meaning is the meaning of a lexem or word that is in one context, including also can
be related to the situation, or in other words contextual meaning is the meaning based on the
relationship between the utterances.
We can conclude that the notion of meaning is very difficult to determine because each
language user has the ability and a different perspective in interpreting a speech or word.
However, to interpret a sentence still needs to be considered in the context of the discourse or
situation. There are several aspects of meaning according to Verhaar, namely:
a) Grammatical Meaning
Grammatical meanings are meanings that undergo change when a grammatical process
occurs. An example of grammatical meaning in English is the suffix -s in word erasers
has the meaning of many erasers. For example in the following sentence:
a. The girl bought the erasers.
b. The girl bought the eraser.
The grammatical meaning in English of the suffix -s in word erasers has the meaning of
many erasers. While in the second sentence eraser word has a single object meaning. So
it can be concluded that grammatical meaning is the meaning that arises due to the
function of a word that is influenced by the factor of tenses in the sentence.
b) Lexical Meaning
The lexical meaning is the meaning of lexeme when the lexeme stands alone, as well as
in its basic form or derived lexeme and its meaning remains as we can see in the
dictionary. Lexical meaning is defined as the meaning of lexicon, is lexeme or is word. In
other words, lexical meaning is the meaning of the word loosely, without any relation to
other words in a structure (phrases, clauses or sentences). Therefore the lexical meaning
 can be regarded as meaning that according to the source. Examples of lexical meanings in
theory include:
- House: the building for human habitation.
- Eating: chewing and swallowing something.
- Food: everything that can be eaten.
- Horses: a type of four-legged animal that is usually ridden.
c) Contextual Meaning
Contextual meaning is the meaning of a lexeme or word that is in one context, including
also can be related to the situation or in other words contextual meaning is the meaning
based on the relationship between the utterances. Contextual meaning is the meaning
determined by the context of use. This meaning will become clear when used in
sentences. Contextual meanings apply as a result of the relationship between speech and
situations. In other words the meaning appears as an additional meaning in addition to the
true meaning of the impressions caused by certain situations. As an example:
- The mouse word is lexically meaningful of a mouse but when its use is in a
condition where the speaker is using a computer, in the phrase "this is
annoying! I will throw this mouse" means that the mouse does not mean a
mouse animal, but contextually it is computer hardware.

Besides, Leech also divides the meaning into seven types, namely:
1) Conceptual Meaning
Conceptual meaning is also called cognitive meaning or denotative meaning. Leech
(1981: 9) said that conceptual meaning is widely assumed to be the central factor in
linguistic communication, and I think it can be shown to be integral to the essential
functioning of the language in a way that other types of meaning are not. From Leech's
opinion, we can conclude that conceptual meaning is a major factor in language
communication. In addition, the conceptual meaning is also part of an important function
in the language.
2) Connotative Meaning
Leech (1981: 12) argues that connotative meaning is the communicative value of an
expression of what it refers to, over and above its purely conceptual content. We may
 conclude, the communicative value possessed by the expression based on what it refers
to, above and above that of its conceptual meaning.
3) Social Meaning
Leech (1981: 14) argues that social meaning is what a piece of language conveys about
the social circumstances of its use. We can conclude that social meaning is when a
language unit describes the social state of its use.
4) Affective Meaning
Regarding the meaning of effective, Leech (1981: 15) argues that affective meaning is
how the language reflects the personal feelings of the speakers, including his attitude to
the listener, or his attitude to something he is talking about. So, we can conclude that
affective meaning is how the language describes the speaker's feelings, including his
behavior towards the listener or something to talk about. Then, Leech (1981: 15) also said
that the affective meaning is often explicitly conveyed through the conceptual or
connotative content of the word used. So the meaning of the quotation affective meanings
are often conveyed explicitly through words used both in connotative and conceptual
terms. One of the important things related to affective meaning is how the speaker's
feelings or emotions in a speech are responded by the other person.
5) Reflected Meaning
According to Leech (1981: 16) reflected meaning is the meaning which arises in cases of
multiple conceptual meaning, when one sense of a word forms part of our response to
another sense. The conclusion of the quotation explains that the meaning of reflection is
the meaning that arises in the case of the diversity of conceptual meanings when one
form of the word reflects our response to another word form.
6) Collocative Meaning
Leech (1981: 17) states that the collocative meaning of consisting of the associations a
word of necessity in which it tends to occur in its environment. The conclusion of the
quotation, the meaning of collocation contains the word association of words that exist in
its environment. Examples of words pretty and handsome have the same meaning that is
good looking. Both words have differences that lie in the types of words that follow. For
example, the word pretty is used in pretty woman, and handsome word is used in
handsome man.
 7) Thematic Meaning
Leech (1981: 19) states that thematic meaning is communicated by the way in which a
speaker or writer organizes the massage, in terms of ordering, focus, and emphasis. The
conclusion of the above quotation is thematic meaning communicated by way of speaker
or author generates messages, either in the form of command, focus, or emphasis.

3. References and Sense

Reference and Sense to distinguish between these two aspects of meaning is very
different but interrelated with each other. References relate to linguistic elements, words,
sentences, etc. and in non-linguistic experiences. Sense relates to the existing system of
relationships among the linguistic elements themselves such as from words relating only to intra-
linguistic relationships.
Huford (2007: 26) said "In speaking of reference we deal with the relationships between
language and the world. By means of reference, a speaker indicates which things in the world
(including persons) are being talked about”. The meaning of the reference is the relationship
between the expression of the language and to whatever the expression refers.
Example: "Joni is standing in the yard"
Joni in the example refers to the person in the yard and otherwise, if we ask Who is
standing in the yard? Answer Joni. In this case it looks similar reference between Joni
and the person in the yard.
However, Huford also said "Every expression that has meaning has sense, but not every
expression has reference”. That is not all expression has a reference. Example, with the words
almost, pordable, and, if and above.
Besides references, there is another dimension of the meaning of the word called sense. For
example the word dog not only has reference or reference but can also reflect features that help
us to understand the concept of monkey, for example: Monkey is animal, Monkey has
four legs, Monkey has tail and etc.
This opinion was conveyed by Saeed (1997: 32) as: “Sense” as the factor that makes us
“understand the expression” and which “we can use ... to refer to a particular individual at any
given time”. The meaning of his statement, sense as a factor that makes us understand the
expression refers to a particular individual.
So, sense is something abstract and lies in the mind of the language user. When one can
fully understand what others are saying to him, then he can capture the sense of what he hears.

LEXICAL STRUCTURE
Now we will approach the problem of meaning from the point of view of the sense-connection.
We will start with some familiar or familiar traditional categories and then introduce new ones.
Then, we will consider how such relationships can be handled within a structural framework.

1. Synonymy
Synonymy is a semantic relationship that states have meaning or similarity of meaning
between one units of speech with other units of speech.
Example of synonymy:
- Smart, Clever
- Pretty, nice, beautiful
- I, me, mine, myself
- Died, die
- Lie, falsehood, humbug
- Happy, glad, pleased
- Ancient, antique, olden
- Face, look
- Fact, reality
- Flower, interest
2. Antonymy
Antonim is a semantic relationship between two units of speech whose meaning reverses,
contradicts, or contras between one another.
Example:
- Strong >< Weak
 - True >< False
- Diligent >< Lazy
- Light >< Dark
- Hard >< Soft
- Honest >< Lie
- Brave >< Afraid
- Expensive >< Cheap
- Good >< Bad
- Beautiful >< Ugly
3. Polysemy
Polysemy is a form of language that has a variety of meanings. The difference between
the meanings of one with the meaning of the other can be traced or traced to arrive at one
conclusion that the meanings are from the same source. For example, the head of which at least
has the meaning (1) part of the human body, (2) the chairman or leader, (3) something that is at
the top, (4) something that is round, (5) something or a very important part.
In the case of this polysemy, usually the first meaning is the true meaning, its lexical
meaning, its denotative meaning, or its conceptual meaning. The other is the meaning - meaning
developed on the basis of one component of the meaning of the word or unit of speech.
Therefore, the meanings of a word or unit of words that are polysemy are massively related to
each other.
Examples of polysemy:
- head (because it is always located at the top / highest position, examples of chiefs,
head of letters, principals)
- mouth (as the entrance and the location is always in front, the example of cave
mouth, tiger mouth, mouth alley, bottle mouth)
- lips (located on the edge, the example of the river mouth)

4. Homonymy
 Homonymy is two or more words that have the shape and pattern of sounds the same but
there is a difference between the meanings of these words. If the same pronunciation is called
homograf, but if the same is the spelling then it is called homophone.
- Homophonic is the similarity of sound between two units of speech, regardless of
spelling, whether the spelling is the same or different.
Example:
- See : Sea
- Beach : Bitch
- Was : Wash
- Snack : Snake
- Buy : Bye
- Sell : Cell
- Die : Dye
- Homography is a form of speech that is equal to its orthography or spelling, but
its utterance and meaning are not the same.
Example:
- Blue: Color
- Blue: Feeling sad
- Type: write with the keyboard
- Type: Type
- Project: Tasks
- Project: Design
- Bat: equipment in baseball sport
- Bat: Bats ( animal)
5. Hyponymy
Hyponym is a expression (usually in the form of words, but it would also be a phrase or
sentence) whose meaning is considered a part of another expression. This hyponymy close
relationship with synonymy. Hypernym is a word that represents many other words. The word
hypernym can be a common word for the mention of other words. Generally the words
hypernym is a category and hyponym is a member of the word hypernym.
Example:
 - Hypernym: Fish. Hyponymy: Dolphins, sharks, and others.
- Hypernym: Bird Hyponym: Pigeon, knee, and others.
- Hypernym: Cake Hyponym: Biscuits, Brownies, and others.

6. Incompatibility
We have previously discussed the fact that different words may have the same meaning
and the same words may have different meanings. So obviously different words may have
different meanings. The simple distinction of meaning itself is unattractive, but only the
difference has its connection.
We will discuss and briefly discuss the Field Theory from semantics. This comes from de
Saussure's notion of difference. He showed a knight not because of inherent qualities (such as
shape, size, etc.), but because of what can be done with other pieces on the board. He
emphasized the rational aspect of this language, saying there were only difference and no
positive terms. For example, he argues that sheep in English have different values than in French.
Similarly, the plural word in Sanskrit has a different value from the French or English plural,
since in Sanskrit it belongs to three singular, dual, plural languages, whereas in France it has
only a single and plural short term system.
The most famous example of field theory is the theory of J. Trier comparing the field of
intellectual aspects of Motion around 1200 with about 1300 or detailed discussion, the reader
should refer to Semantic Cullman. In the previous period the field was divided into a kunst and a
list, the first refers to a qualitative court and a second skill without skills. The term wisest is used
to cover the whole. In the later period, however, the field was divided into three religious
experiences of wisest, brass knowledge and witchcraft (a new term, a missing term and only now
only one part, not the whole).
The Trier example compares the languages of two different periods. We can also
compare two languages to see how they divide certain fields. A commonly cited example is the
term color. There are many other similar examples. Similarly he notes in three Maya words to
search, (a) chooses the good from the bad, (b) seeks in an orderly manner, (c) searches in an
orderly manner, and in Shilluk (Africa) three words, one for breaking sticks, etc. One for ropes,
one for eggs. We can add to this list a number of familiar classes, metal irons, copper, etc.,
mammal’s lions, tigers, or other types of motor cars and so on.
 For these examples, we have a list of words that refer to all items of a particular class that
divide a semantic field. But almost all cases, a relocation point is that the words are stored in a
compatible. We cannot say this red hat and this same thing is a green hat. We also cannot allow
being described as the lions and elephants. Sentences with compatible requirements will conflict
with each other. Sometimes incompatibility is a reflection of a clear and perhaps even scientific
definition in the world of experience. Lions and elephants are different specimens and different
copper and iron metals. But this is not entirely relevant. Relevant is the term itself is not
appropriate, even if there is probably no clear distinction in this world. Sample of the color, red
and orange. There is no clear dividing line in the spectrum between these two classes, but we
will never agree that a particular object is red and at the same time orange. We can even describe
it as the next red and orange day, but we still will never admit that it's red and orange. Red and
orange are inappropriate terms.
It is possible that in some areas there is overlap. This may be true of the list quoted from
Nida however, in general, terms in this kind of system derive their value as stated by Saussure,
from their contrastive relations with others, and do not correspond.
The basic characteristic of the goods in this class is their incompatibility. In addition, they
are irregular meaning there is no natural way, as far as their meaning is concerned with arranging
it in any order and if we want to include it, we should do the alphabet ordering. Admittedly,
scientists will have a framework for metal or mammalian classification, but it is a different
matter, there is no way in which, in terms of clear characteristics, we can organize elephants,
giraffes, and rhino. But there are some word groups that seem to have multiple orders. The days
of the week and the years of the year form a collection of inappropriate items because we cannot
say this month is November and March as well. But they also have sequential relationships like
Sunday that comes just before Monday Sunday is the day before Monday, and others. Similarly,
measurements such as inches, feet, can be performed sequentially, starting from the smallest.
Figures one, two, three, etc., are another obvious example. But we have to be careful here. In
math we have sequences other than one, two, three we also have two, four, six, eight one, four,
nine, sixteen (box) and IQ test addicts will know that dozens of others can be found.
The term color, for example, is strictly, no more than an unordered sequence that does not
fit but places it in sequence by arranging it along the dimension of the wavelength. This is not
reflected in the language. We have no adjectives to say that Red is more than orange and Orange
is more than yellow, and others. Reservations are not reflected in English like the days of the
week or month of the year. But if we look for the characteristics of the physical color is too little
and not too much. Color is not taken into account in terms of a single dimension. It involves
three variables. What is clear is the hue, which can be measured in wavelength and visible on
spectrum or rainbow. Another is the luminosity or the brightness and saturation of the third, the
degree of freedom from whites. So pink is different from red especially because it has low
saturation (has a lot of white in it). We may regard colors primarily as hues, but this may not
apply to all societies. It has often been noted that the sea as a colorful wine, which is very strange
if we think of hue, but it is very understandable if we think of its luminosity and saturation,
which is very similar to that in red wine.
Considerations such as these should make us careful about the preparation of color words
along the scientific dimension or comparing the words of one language to another in such a
dimension. Their mismatch is clear enough, but it is much less clear that he has a natural order.

7. Relational Opposites
Different types are found by pairs of words that indicate a reversal of relationships
between items (or arguments). Examples are buy / sell, husband / wife. If A sells to B, B buys
from A; If A is the husband of B, B is the wife of A. Lyons suggests the term converseness for
this, but this is more of a relational opposition.
There are several verbs that pair in this way of buying / selling, lending / borrowing,
renting / letting, owning / belonging, giving / receiving. There are also nouns husband / wife,
parent / child, debtor / creditor, and, perhaps, teacher / student. A number of terms referring to
the spatial position also include above / below, in front / back, north / south, and others. In
grammar as well, passive and active passive oppositions show, because if A hit B, B is hit by A.
Relationships are often characterized by logicians in terms of symmetry, transitivity and
reflexivity. A symmetric relation if it holds arguments, related items in both directions. If we
have the argument A and the relation band R then R and B need the letter A. The obvious
example is in English marry and cousin, because if John marries Mary, Mary marries John and if
Bill is Fred's cousin, Fred is Bill's cousin. A relation is transitive if R B and B R C require R C
So many transitive spatial terms if John is In front of Harry and Harry is in front of Bill, John is
also in front of Bill. The same goes for the back, above, below, north, south and deep. This of
course, hold for the opposite, which is symmetrical (if A is opposite to B, B opposite A), but not
transitive. Transitive and transitory are used in a completely different sense in the grammar. A
relation is reflexive if it connects the argument with itself, i.e. Ria. This can be exemplified by
the same or similar four equals four. John resembles himself. These words are also symmetrical
and transitive. Reflexivity is less interesting here, and will not be discussed further.
The term kinship is very interesting in the opposite relational discussion for two reasons.
In the first place many of them not only show relationships, but girls' gender and so on. It's a
block reversal. To say that John is Sam's father, does not mean that Sam is Sam's son, John, may
be his daughter. Therefore we have a couple that shows the same but different relationship
between father / mother, daughter, uncle / aunt, niece / niece of women. There are also pairs of
words that will be symmetrical not because of their gender indication. For example, brothers and
sisters. It's not certain that John is Sam's brother, Sam is John's brother so he might be his sister.
Only a small number of terms in English do not show symmetrical (symmetrical) cousins and
parents and children (along with grandparents) or not. This rare term is available, although it is
widely used by anthropologists to avoid gender partner references for spouses and brothers /
siblings are both symmetrical. But there is no such term for an uncle / aunt, niece / nephew.
Secondly, whether a term is symmetrical or not is a language problem. Thus married
symmetrically in English, because as the couple did not show gender. But in different language
terms used for husbands and wives, quite often the active form of verbs for husbands and
passives for wives, John married Mary but Mary was married to John. In English married and
being married is used for good couples, and both are symmetrical though have different
meanings. Similarly, many languages do not have a cousin symmetrical term, gender must be
shown in this language, or the exact relationship of the parents. Other complications as well.
Brother and sister relationship in several languages are bound not only by gender, but also age,
so if two girls are sisters, one is older sisters, one sister to another.
There are several other terms that are not strictly related to the opposite relational, yet
different in the spatial direction. Some of the most interesting couples are coming and going.
Come is limited in a way that does not, in this case indicates the direction towards the speaker or
the listener. It is used, first, for simple directions to speakers or listeners as it comes to me and I
will come to you. Secondly, it is also used to direct speakers or listeners during relevant events,
both past and future (and also current), He came to see me in London, I will come to see you in
Paris (when you get there). Thirdly, it is used to refer to referrals to the place where the speaker
or listener is commonly found, even though it is not at the relevant time. Come to my office
(though I will not get there), I came to your house (but you came out). In this third case go is
possible, go to my office, I go to your house. Moreover, if the reference is the continuous motion
of the person's position, going will be much more normal. I can hardly say directly to my boss, if
the person I talked to was with me somewhere other than my office, because the motion was then
far from me. Likewise we should not say that He left you at his home and came to you again
because the motion was far from the person concerned. If there is no indication in all positions
either the listener or the speaker, the go will be used. Coming and going is not the only pair of
verbs with this characteristic. Take it and take it exactly like Sam, with the added meaning of
carry.
There are other word pairs that are related in the same way. Then ask for a reply and
offer, thank. This is not an opposite relational example, but a temporal relation. Moreover, the
relationship between members of each partner is not the same. Ask and offer may expect a reply
and accept, but hope may be disappointing there may be no answer or acceptance (although, for
bidding, there is also a term refuse). But reply and accept also the assumption that there has been
an act of asking or giving, this is the natural result of the temporal relationship.
Finally, it should be noted that true gradation antonyms can be treated essentially in the
opposite relational terms. Because we can see that the width can be seen wider than the norm and
that if a is wider than b, b is narrower than a. The wider and narrower comparative form (its form
is explicitly gradative) contrasts with the relational. Conversely, transitive (if wider than b and b
is wider than c, a wider than c), but not symmetrical or reflexive.

8. Component
A very different approach, perhaps seen at first sight, is an analysis in terms of the total
meaning of a word seen in terms of a number of different elements or components of meaning.
The notion of a component does not introduce any further type of relationship; it is meant to
offer a theoretical framework for addressing all the relationships we have discussed.
 The idea that semantics could be handled in terms of components has been argued with
the investigation of kinship terms. It was noted that in Spanish, for instance, the gender of the
people involved is clearly marked ending -o for male, -a for female as in:

Tio uncle tia aunt

Hijo son hija daughter
Abuelo grandfather abuela grandmother
Hermano brother hermana sister

English does not have gender markers, of course, although the ending occurs in baroness, tigress,
lioness, duchess, etc. But if we look at semantics that are not very relevant. There is no reason
why it should not try to classify English kinship terms by referring to categories such as gender,
even if the language does not mark these terms in the form of words.
Therefore, sex provides a set of components for kinship terms, generation differences and
relationship levels give two other things. Thus, for generational differences, it takes at least five
generations to be labeled g1, g2, g3, g4, g5. Then grandfather, mother, father, uncle, etc., g2,
brother, cousin, g3, boy, nephew g4, and grandson g5. On systems such as the ego (the one who
is closely related), clearly g3. Of course we need other people to deal with great-grandparents,
etc. The degree of relationship involves lineality direct for grandfather, father, colineal for
brother, uncle (but with different generations) and ablineal for cousins. With these three
components, all English kinship requirements can be addressed. Aunties are women, g2 and
choline, male or female cousins, g3 and ablineal.
We can most easily recognise components where words can be set out in a diagrammatic
form to represent some kind of 'proportional' relationship. In English (and the same is true of
many other languages) there is a three fold division with many words that refer to living
creatures:

man woman child

bull cow calf
 ram ewe lamb
boar sow piglet
Thus bull is to cow as ram is to ewe or in mathematical terms bull: cow: ram: ewe. In the
light of relationships such as these we can abstract the components (male) and (female), (adult)
and (non adult), plus (human), (bovine) and (porcine). Strictly these examples do not distinguish
(male) and (female) in full conjunction with (adult) and (non adult), since that would imply four
possibilities and we only have three. But all four are to be found in:
man woman boy girl
However, even with the order examples, it is more plausible to make both distinctions than to say
that there are simply three possibilities (male), (female) and (non adult).
This kind of analysis (componential analysis) allows us to provide definitions for all
these words in several components. So the pig is (boar), (male), (adult) and so on. There is, as we
saw earlier, a gap in the system there is no term to distinguish between men, women and young
with giraffes or rhinoceros. Often the distinction is made by using terms taken from other groups
in relation to the generic bull elephant one, elephant female and elephant calf. Badgers are both
boars and pigs (though young children may be their children), male fox is a dog or dog-fox, but
females have specific vixen terms.
In many cases there is an appropriate word in the language to label the component. Male
and female are obvious examples. But it would be a mistake to suppose that if we use such terms
to define a common word that the resultant phrase is semantically identical with it. Thus boar is
not the same as male adult pig, it is important to note that in the vocabulary of English we have
words such as boar, whereas with giraffe we can only use the phrase adult male giraffes, the
difference is relevant to the semantic structure of English.
Such labels are not, however, always readily available. We have noted the semantic
relationship:
come go
bring take

We noted that come is to go as bring is to take and we could therefore distinguish components X
and Y and A and B such that come is XA and go XB, bring YA and take YB. Notice also from
these examples that it is unlikely that components are universal features of language. We may,
perhaps, assume that all societies distinguish between male and female and that thus (male) and
(female) are universal components of language. Of course some language may not make the
distinction in the vocabulary, but it could then be said that the list of universal components was
potential, i.e. available for all languages if not actually used. But the come, go, bring, take
examples show that components are not related to simple physical features such as gender, and it
becomes less plausible to assume that they are universal.
A particular characteristic of componential analysis is that it attempts as far as possible to
treat components in terms of binary opposites, e.g. between (male) and (female), (animate) and
(inanimate), (adult) and (non adult). In this it clearly gives emphasis to the relation of
complementarily. Notationally there is an advantage in such binary terms in that we can choose
one only as the label and distinguish this in terms of plusses and minuses. Thus (male) and
(female) are written as (+male) and (-male) and so on. We can, moreover, refer to the lack of a
sex distinction as plus or minus with the symbol (+ male). But this works well only where there
is a clear distinction; often there is indeterminacy, as with tar and porridge in relation to (solid) /
(liquid).
In practice componential analysis has not been used simply in order to restate the
relations discussed in earlier sections. Rather it has been used to bring out the logical relations
that are associated with them. Thus by marking man as (+male) and pregnant as (-male), we can
rule out *pregnant man. Similarly by marking boy as (+male) (-adult) (+human) and child as (-
adult) and (+human), we can establish that. There were two boys entails there were two children
and Children are a nuisance entails Boys are a nuisance (though the rules of entailment are
obviously fairly complex).
Componential analysis can thus handle all the relations we have discussed, simply
because it can be made to do so, with the relevant modifications. But it is doubtful whether it
makes them clearer, it seems rather to obscure their differences.
The componential approach to semantics is basic to Katz and Fodor's the structure of a
semantic theory. This work has been of such interest that it deserves some consideration here
although Katz has explicitly modified his views, I shall use it as the basis of the discussion.
 As we have already seen, they are concerned essentially with ambiguity, anomaly and
paraphrase. The arguments are, however, very largely based upon ambiguity upon showing that a
sentence may have two readings. Thus the bill is large is ambiguous until it is disambiguated
by....but need not be paid.
The theory has one major drawback. There is, in theory, no limit to the number of markers
that can be established. Any piece of information can be used to disambiguate and can thus
function as a marker. For instance, the bachelor wagged his flippers is hardly ambiguous it must
refer to the fur seal. The bachelor got his hair wet, on the other hand, cannot refer to the fur seal,
though it might refer to any of the other three. If we use the disambiguation test we have, for the
fur seal, the markers (having flippers) and not having hair and the list is endless. Katz later
dropped the distinction between marker and distinguisher, but the difficulty remains. However
we tackle the problem, we shall be faced with an infinite set of components, because in principle
any piece of information may be used to disambiguate a sentence. Componential analysis
appears, at first sight, to be an attractive way of handling semantic relations. But it raises far too
many difficulties to be at all workable.

THE DIMENSIONS OF MEANING

1. Reference and Denotation

In every language there are words like tree and run and red which seem to have an
obvious relation to objects and events and descriptions of things in the world around us. Children
learning their native language first learn words in association with observable items and
situations and events. This simple fact can give rise to an overly simple idea about what meaning
is. We are likely to think that a language consists of a large number of words and each of these
words has a direct correlation with something outside of language, which is its meaning. And
since, if we communicate with one another through language, it must be that we all have the
same idea or concept associated with each word. The best known elaboration of this view was
made by Ogden and Richards (1923), who developed a mentalistic theory about meaning, an
attempt to explain meaning in terms of what is in people’s minds. Ogden and Richards called the
bond between word and concept an association, the bond between concept and object reference,
and the bond between object and word meaning.
When we hear or read a word, we often form a mental picture of what the word
represents, and so we are apt to equate ‘concept’ with a mental picture. To be sure, it is easier to
form a mental picture for some words door and dog, for example than for others such as ordinary
or problem or pretend. But the idea of a mental picture is misleading. What mental image do you
form for door? A revolving door? A folding door? A sliding door, moving horizontally? An
overhead door which moves vertically? A door turning on hinges? Is it in a wall, or on a cabinet,
or part of a car? Is your image associated with dog that of a St Bernard or a Pekingese, a mongrel
or an Irish setter? You can picture all of these in sequence but not simultaneously. Clearly the
meaning of door or dog is more than what is included in a single image, and your knowledge of
these words is much more than the ability to relate them to single objects. You can use these
words successfully in a large number of situations because you have the knowledge that makes
this possible.
Just as we distinguished between utterance and sentence, we need to draw a distinction
between reference and denotation. Reference is the relation between a language expression such
as this door, both doors, the dog, another dog and whatever the expression pertains to in a
particular situation of language use, including what a speaker may imagine. Denotation is the
potential of a word like door or dog to enter into such language expressions. Reference is the
way speakers and hearers use an expression successfully; denotation is the knowledge they have
that makes their use successful.
The trouble with a mentalistic theory of meaning is, first, that not all words can be
associated with mental images and some words have a range of meaning greater than any single
association. The bigger problem with a mentalistic theory is that we have no access to other
people’s minds. How can we ever know that we all have the same mental images? If semantics is
a science, it cannot operate scientifically by starting with things that are not observable and not
comparable.
Furthermore, words are not the only semantic units. Meanings are expressed by units that
may be smaller than words morphemes and meanings are expressed in units’ sentences that are
larger than words. The sentences the dog bit a man and the man bit a dog, to use a trite example,
contain the same words but they don’t express the same meanings.
2. Connotation
The word dog has a certain denotation, the possibility of entering into numerous referring
expressions such as the underlined expressions in the following.
a) This dog is a Dalmatian.
b) My children have just acquired a dog.
c) Several dogs were fighting over a bone.

But how do you feel about dogs? How does a particular society value dogs? Hjelmslev
(1971:109–10) pointed out that among the Eskimos a dog is an animal that is used for pulling a
sled, the Parsees regard dogs as nearly sacred, Hindus consider them a great pest and in Western
Europe and America some members of the species still perform the original chores of hunting
and guarding while others are merely pets. Hjelmslev might have added that in certain societies
the flesh of dogs is part of the human diet and in other societies it is not. The meaning of dog
includes the attitudes of a society and of individuals, the pragmatic aspect. It would be wrong to
think that a purely biological definition of the lexeme dog is a sufficient account of its meaning.
Part of its meaning is its connotation, the affective or emotional associations it elicits, which
clearly need not be the same for all people who know and use the word.
A denotation identifies the central aspect of word meaning, which everybody generally
agrees about. Connotation refers to the personal aspect of meaning, the emotional associations
that the word arouses. Connotations vary according to the experience of individuals but, because
people do have common experiences, some words have shared connotations.
Languages provide means of expressing different attitudes. The referring expressions that
violin and that fiddle can have the same referent can refer to the same object on a particular
occasion but they do not have the same meaning. They differ in connotation. Violin is the usual
term, the neutral one, fiddle-is used for humor or to express affection or lack of esteem.
Somewhat similar relations are seen with automobile and car, building and edifice, fire and
conflagration and other sets, the members of which have, or can have the same denotation but
differ in the situations in which they are used and therefore have differences in the degree of
formality, the style or flavor the connotation. We also need to note here that car, building, and
fire have larger denotations than automobile, edifice and conflagration respectively.
 The expression of attitudes can be quite subtle. We choose to use one word rather than
another. For example, say that Linda is thin, or slender, or svelte, or skinny.

3. Sense Relation
Meaning is more than denotation and connotation. What a word means depends in part on
its associations with other words, the relational aspect. Lexemes do not merely ‘have’ meanings;
they contribute meanings to the utterances in which they occur, and what meanings they
contribute depends on what other lexemes they are associated with in these utterances. The
meaning that a lexeme has because of these relationships is the sense of that lexeme. Part of this
relationship is seen in the way words do, or do not, go together meaningfully. It makes sense to
say John walked and it makes sense to say an hour elapsed. It doesn’t make sense to say John
elapsed or an hour walked. Part of the meaning of elapse is that it goes with hour, second,
minute, day but not with John, and part of the meaning of hour, second and so forth is that these
words can co occur with elapse.
Part of the relationship is seen in the way word meanings vary with context. A library is a
collection of books (Professor Jones has a rather large library) and is also a building that houses
a collection of books (The library is at the corner of Wilson and Adams Streets). A number of
English verbs can be used in two different ways different grammatical association and then have
slightly different meanings. We can say:
a) A window broke.
b) Tom broke a window.

Here what happened to the window is the same, but in the first sentence broke is equivalent to
became broken and in the second it is equivalent to caused to be broken. Adjectives, too, can
have different senses. If you come across some object which you have never seen before, and
you wonder about its origin and its purpose, we can say that you are curious about it. But we can
also call the object a curious kind of thing. The same term is used for your subjective feelings
and for the supposedly objective properties of this item a curious person, a curious object. A
judge makes decisions; if he is guided by personal whim or choice, the judge is arbitrary
(dictionary definition: inclined to make decisions based on personal whim) but we also say that
the decision is arbitrary (dictionary definition: based on personal choice rather than reason). A
lexeme does not merely have meaning; it contributes to the meaning of a larger unit, a phrase or
sentence. Take these phrases with the adjective happy. For example:

a happy child, a happy family

a happy accident, a happy experience
a happy story, a happy report

When happy combines with a word that has the feature (human), like child and family in the first
line, it is roughly equivalent to who enjoy(s) happiness a happy child is a child who has or enjoys
happiness. In combination with words that have the feature (event) such as accident and
experience, its contribution is roughly ‘that produces happiness.’ In combination with words that
have the feature (discourse) story, report its meaning is roughly containing a happy event or
events. Each of these words has a range of meanings, each meaning is determined by its
linguistic context, just as the meaning of door on any specific occasion is determined by the
physical context in which it occurs.
The meaning of a lexeme is, in part, its relation to other lexemes of the language. Each
lexeme is linked in some way to numerous other lexemes of the language. We can notice two
kinds of linkage, especially. First, there is the relation of the lexeme with other lexemes with
which it occurs in the same phrases or sentences, in the way that arbitrary can co-occur with
judge, happy with child or with accident, sit with chair, read with book or newspaper. These are
syntagmatic relations, the mutual association of two or more words in a sequence (not
necessarily right next to one another) so that the meaning of each is affected by the other (s) and
together their meanings contribute to the meaning of the larger unit, the phrase or sentence.
Another kind of relation is contrastive. Instead of saying the judge was arbitrary, for
instance, we can say the judge was cautious or careless, or busy or irritable, and so on with
numerous other possible descriptors. This is a paradigmatic relation, a relation of choice. We
choose from among a number of possible words that can fill the same blank, the words may be
similar in meaning or have little in common but each is different from the others.
Since we are used to a writing system that goes from left to right, we may think of
syntagmatic relations as horizontal and paradigmatic relations as vertical. A compound
expression, such as book and newspaper, cautious but arbitrary, read or write puts two lexemes
that are paradigmatically related into a syntagmatic relationship.
As children, we learn vocabulary first through specific associations with specific things,
actions, and characteristics (reference) and as we learn to recognize different instances of the
same thing, the same event, and so on, we generalize (denotation). Slowly we learn from other
members of our speech community and from our personal experiences what associations are
favorable and which are not (connotation). And we acquire an implicit knowledge of how
lexemes are associated with other lexemes (sense relations). Our implicit knowledge of
syntagmatic relations facilitates our perception and identification of what we hear and read,
enabling us to correct automatically what we hear and see, or what we think we hear and see,
when correction is needed, we must have heard five o’clock because *fine o’clock is not a
familiar collocation. An asterisk inserted before a phrase or sentence in the text indicates that that
this is not an acceptable English construction.

4. Lexical Ambiguity
When homonyms can occur in the same position in utterances, the result is lexical
ambiguity, as in, for example, I was on my way to the bank. Of course, the ambiguity is not
likely to be sustained in a longer discourse. A following utterance, for example, is likely to carry
information about depositing or withdrawing money, on the one hand, or, on the other hand,
fishing or boating. Quite often homonyms belong to different lexical categories and therefore do
not give rise to ambiguity. For instance, seen is a form of the verb see while scene is an unrelated
noun, feet is a plural noun with concrete reference, feat is a singular noun, rather abstract in
nature and so on.
Ambiguity occurs also because a longer linguistic form has a literal sense and a figurative
sense. Example:
There’s a skeleton in our closet.

Skeleton in the closet can mean an unfortunate event that is kept a family secret. With this
meaning skeleton in the closet is a single lexeme, with its literal meaning it is a phrase composed
of several lexemes.
5. Sentence Meaning
We communicate with utterances, and each utterance is an instance of a sentence. But
how can we explain what sentence meaning is? Two points are obvious. First, the meaning of a
sentence derives from the meanings of its constituent lexemes and from the grammatical
meanings it contains. So if you know all the lexical and grammatical meanings expressed in a
sentence, you know the meaning of the sentence, and vice versa. Second, at least if the sentence
is a statement, if you know the meaning of the sentence, you know what conditions are necessary
in the world for that sentence to be true. Example:

Albert Thompson opened the first flour mill in Waterton.

You don’t know whether this sentence is true or not, but you know that if it is true, there must
exist (at some time) a person named Albert Thompson and a place called Waterton
(presuppositions), that Albert Thompson opened a flour mill, and that there was no flour mill in
Waterton before Albert Thompson opened his mill (entailments). You know that if this sentence
is true, the sentence Albert Thompson did not open the first flour mill in Waterton is false (a
contradiction).
Truth-conditional semantics is based on the notion that the core meaning of any sentence
(any statement) is its truth conditions. Any speaker of the language knows these conditions. If a
sentence is true (or false), what other sentences, expressing partly the same, partly different
conditions, can be judged by this sentence? If a given sentence is true, does this make another
sentence also true, or does it falsify the other sentence, or is there no truth relation? Matters of
truth and logic are of more importance in truth-conditional semantics than meanings of lexemes
contains more about truth-conditional semantics.
We are not yet finished with the dimensions of meaning. Often we derive more meaning
from what we hear or read than what is actually in the message. Perhaps this is due to an
intuition we have or to the fact that the speaker or writer infers something hints at some further
meaning. In semantics we are not interested in intuitions or hints but we are interested in the
instances when the language of the message implicates some additional meaning that accounts
for our inference. Let’s look at some examples.
 One team consisted of six students from Felman College.

Let’s say that this sentence represents an utterance that is part of a larger discourse. We
understand what it means even though we are unfamiliar with Felman College (if such an entity
exists) because we know the lexical and grammatical meanings of the components and we can
deduce that Felman College names an entity similar to some that we do know. And we can infer
more than this. From the phrase one team we infer that the larger discourse contains information
about at least one other team. Is this in the meaning of the lexeme team? Is a team composed of
people necessarily in competition with another team or other teams? Does our inference come
from the fact that one team is paradigmatically related to a second team, another team, and so
on? Next, compare:

One team consisted of the six students from Felman College.

Previous sentences tell the same thing about the composition of the team but sentences above
more informative has more meaning about students from Felman College. We can infer that
there were at least six students from Felman College. Sentence above says that there were only
six students from Felman College.

LINGUISTIC CONTEXT
The meaning can be expressed in terms of the occurrence of linguistic items in a particular non-
linguistic context. But it is possible to refute the meaning or part of the meaning of some
elements especially the words that cannot be denied in their linguistic context.

1. Context as meaning
The most extreme views, such as the most extreme views of the non-linguistic context, see
the meaning of the word as fully appropriate in the context of the context of its occurrence. Its
origin lies in the view that linguistic analysis is closely related to the distribution of linguistic
elements, the view most closely resembling the name of Zellig Harris. It is believed that the task
of the linguist is to provide an empirical method for establishing and classifying its linguistic
elements. The basis for this is an investigation into the environment in which they occur their
distribution. In phonology, for example, we can establish that both leaves and shades (which are
very different phonetically) are equal because they are in a complementary distribution that
occurs only in environments that are nothing else. By a similar argument the -en of oxen can be
shown to be the same as the -s of cats (purely in terms of distribution, without, that is to say,
appealing to their meaning). In the sense, it can be assumed that two different meaning
morphemes differ in their distribution. Distinct distribution is the result of differences in the
meaning of dogs not possible in the same linguistic context as apples. But some linguists have
suggested that the meaning of a word or morpheme is determined by the environment in which it
occurs and that, for example, two words can be considered as if they were and only if they are
really interchangeable in all environments (although this may mean no synonyms). M. Joos does,
in particular, suggest that the linguist's meaning of a unit is a set of conditional probabilities and
he leaves the out or practical meaning sociologist.
Meaning in the sense of the relation of meaning is discussed in the last section, as it relates to
the meaning in the relationship between words, but this time with what we might call the
syntagmatic relationship (contrary to the paradigmatic). By syntagmatic means the relation the
linguistic element possesses with other elements in the stretching of the language in which it
occurs, whereas by paradigmatic it means the relationship it has with the elements by which it
can be replaced or replaced. So if we think the cat is on the mat, we can talk about the
syntagmatic relationship between cat and mat, but if we compare it with the Dog is on the mat,
we have a paradigmatic relationship between cats and dogs. Distribution, therefore, will deal
with pure linguistic relationships of a kind syntagmatic. The statement of meaning in terms of
distribution has the same interest as the statement of meaning in the sense that both are related to
the features of language that can be observed with intra-linguistic relations, rather than vague
language associations with the non-linguistic world of experience.
However, attempts to express meaning in this way are unsatisfactory. First, it does not relate
to what is usually meant by meaning, in this case even less satisfying than the sense linkage of
the last chapter. It doesn’t in this way, fulfilling what Lyons calls the material adequacy
requirements that must be covered by the linguist, at least in part, the general scope generally
applicable to this term. Second, it is difficult to see how such an approach can be done more than
simply showing the similarity and difference in meaning (in terms of similarities and distribution
differences). It is not at all clear how to say what it means, except by listing all the environments
in which an element occurs. In addition, we can also express the meaning for phonemes (voice
language), e. g. / f / as in the legs, flying, etc, because it also has an environment that cannot state
and thus will seem no less have meaning. But it is usually agreed that the phoneme has no
meaning. Third, the similarities and differences of meaning are not related to the similarities and
differences of distribution, since, in particular, antonyms, words with opposite meanings, will
usually be found with almost equal distributions both width and narrow, for example by road,
hem, trousers, bands, etc., while what appears to be synonyms often have very different
distributions. Fourth and most importantly, it is clear that to define meaning in terms of
distribution is so great as to place the cart in front of the horse. Words have different
distributions because they have different meanings.

2. Collocation
A far more extreme view is Firth who thinks you will know a word from the company it
maintains. The familiar example is ass that happens (in the now-defunct English) inside you
silly, do not be like that and with a limited set of adjectives like silly, stubborn, stupid, terrible
and (at times) horrible. But for Firth the company that keeps this, which he calls collocation, is
only part of the meaning of a word. As we have seen, meaning can also be found in the context
of the situation and all other levels of analysis as well. Moreover, he does not care about the total
distribution, but with a clearer and more interesting incident, a shared expectation of words, as he
says. We can see here that the collocation differs from Harris's distribution of the analysis and
others in the same way as the context of the situation differs from the behaviorist approach. For
Firth, it is concerned only by choosing the characteristics of the linguistic or non-linguistic
context it deems relevant, not with the totality of such a context. The study of the linguistic
context appeals to semantics for two reasons.
First, by looking at the context of linguistic words we can often distinguish between
different meanings. For example, discussing the use of chairs at:
- the baby's high chair
- condemned to the chair
- the chairman of the meeting
- the chair of philosophy
- the electric chair
 - has accepted a University chair
- sat in a chair
- will chair the meeting
It's paired, giving four different meanings of the word. But this is not so decisive, as it describes,
the difference in meaning. The dictionary, especially the larger one, is quite apt to use this kind
of contextualization.
Secondly, although in general the distribution of words may appear to be determined by
their meaning (not vice versa) in some cases, this is not entirely true. We have briefly noted that
rancidity occurs with bacon and butter, and coupled with the brain and egg, despite the fact that
English has a rotten and bad term and the milk is never rancid but only sour. We shall see that
pretty child and buxom neighbor would normally refer to females, here it is relevant to point out
that we should not normally say pretty boy or buxom man, though pretty girl and buxom woman
are quite normal. This characteristic of language is found in an extreme form in the collective
words - flock of sheep, herd of cows, school of whales, pride of lions, and the rather more absurd
examples such as chattering of magpies, exaltation of larks.
It is also the case that words may have more specific meanings in particular collocations.
Thus we can speak of abnormal or exceptional weather if we have a heat wave in November, but
an exceptional child is not an abnormal child, exceptional being used for greater than usual
ability and abnormal to relate to some kind of defect.
However, it becomes a mistake to try to draw a clear distinction line between the
predictable collocation of the meaning of the words that occur together and those that do not.
There are several extensive investigations of collocation within the text and the results show that
mutual occurrences are determined both by the meaning of individual words and (albeit to a
lesser extent) by the convention about the companies they hold. Obviously between the
predictable collocation of the meaning of words that occur together and those that are not. There
are several in-depth investigations of collocation within the text and the results show that mutual
occurrences are determined both by the meaning of individual words and (albeit to a lesser
extent) by the convention about the company being kept. For this reason, we cannot limit the
term in the proper way, although this does not prevent us from following the Firth and
investigating only the collocations we find interesting.
 All collocations are determined by the meaning of words, though this point of view is
rather strange. Thus it can be said that beauty means handsome in a female (or feminine) way,
and for this reason we can say a beautiful child means a beautiful girl, and not a handsome boy.
It's a bit unreasonable and even unreasonable to say that rancid means rotten with butter like or
meat like a way or a tangle means rotten like a brain or an egg. Because there is no obvious
quality of being rancid or dull which distinguishes them from other types of rottenness. Saying
foul (butter), rotten (egg) does not then form a special meaning to rancid or tangled, it just
indicates that there are words to refer to rottenness when used with butter and eggs. The same
point is even clearer with the words of the collective. There is no difference in meaning between
herds and flocks, except that one is used with cows and the other with sheep.
Part of the difficulty arises from the fact that a word will often collocate with a number of
other words that have a semantic similarity. More strikingly (for the negative example often
makes the points clearer), we find that the words or sequence of individual words will not be
clustered with certain groups of words. So, even though we can say that rhododendrons have
died, we should not say that rhododendrons have passed, even though the fact that passes seems
to mean death. But of course, of course, we should not use the names of any scrub, even with a
bush we've ever heard of for the first time. It is not unreasonable to say that the passage indicates
a specific kind of death that is not typical of the bush. This presumably restricts its use with a
group of semantically related words. The limitation is the range problem, we know about the
type of noun (in the sense of its meaning) by which a verb or adjective can be used. So we do not
reject certain collocations simply because we have not heard them before we rely on our
knowledge of reach.
We can, perhaps, see three kinds of collocation restriction.
a) First, some are based entirely on the meaning of items such as on an impossible
green cow.
b) Secondly, some based on word ranges can be used with a whole set of words that
have some of the same semantic features. This contributes to rhododendron
inequality that passed away and equals the beautiful boy (quite accustomed to the
words that indicate the female).
c) Third, some restrictions are collocational in the strict sense that does not involve
meaning or reach, as is the result of the egg and brain. There may be such cases as
 boundary lines. It may be thought that rancidity can be used with animal products
of a certain kind may be butter and meat have in common.

3. Idioms
Idioms involve special type collocations. For example, kick the bucket, fly off the handle,
and spill the beans, red fish. Not only is there a collocation of kicks and buckets, but also the fact
that the resultant combination is blurred, unrelated to the meaning of individual words, but
sometimes (though not always) closer to meaning from one word (thus kicking a bucket equal to
die).
Even where a semantic idiom like one word is not working. Thus we will not have a tense
kick of the past. Instead, it functions to some extent as a sequence of normal grammatical words,
so that the past tense must have been kicked in a bucket. But there are a large number of
grammatical restrictions. A large number of idioms contain verbs and nouns, but although the
verbs can be placed in the past tense, the number of nouns can never be changed. We have
spilled the beans, but do not spill the beans and equally no fly from the handle, kick the bucket,
put on a good face, put a mask one, etc. Similarly, with the red fish, the noun may be plural, but
adjectives cannot be comparative (form -er). So we find red herrings but not red herring.
There are also many syntactic restrictions. Some idioms have a passive, but others do not.
The law is set and the Beans have been spilled just fine (although some may question the latter),
but the bucket is not kicked. But there is nothing we can say it is (spilled peanuts, laws put on,
buckets being kicked, etc). The restrictions vary from idiom to idiom. Some are more restricted
or frozen than others.
The most common types of idioms in English are the phrasal verb, the combination of verbs
and adverbs of the makeup, give, put down type. The meaning of this combination cannot be
predicted from individual verbs and adverbs and in many cases there is a single verb with the
same or very close meaning, result, quell. Not all combinations of this kind are idiomatic, of
course. Put also has a literal meaning and there are many other things that are idiomatic and not.
The incoming example as in the conjuror attracts the audience, the woman brings homeless
children into it. There is even a degree of ignorance because one can make a story, form a fire or
form a person's face. In addition, not only the sequence of verbs alone plus adverbs that may be
idiomatic. There is also a sequence of verbs plus prepositions, such as searched and searched,
and sequence of verbs, adverbs and prepositions, such as prepared by (tolerate) or escaped
(killing).
There is also something we can call a partial idiom, in which one of the words has the usual
meaning, the other has the peculiar meaning of a particular sequence. Thus red hair refers to the
hair, but not red hair with a tight color. Comedians revel in this partial idiom, for example, when
instructed to make beds, they carry a set of carpenters. An interesting collection involves a white
word, because white coffee is brown, white wine is usually yellow, and white people are pink.
However, white, perhaps, idiomatic only to some extent can be interpreted with the lightest color
usually found. It is not surprising that black is used as an antonym for coffee and people (even if
it is not black), but not used for wine. Thus it can be seen that even partial idiomatic can be a
degree problem and may in some cases be little more than the problem of collocation restrictions.
At a more comic level there is partial cruelty in the rainy season of cats and dogs (in Welsh rainy
old ladies and sticks).
What it is and what is not an idiom, it is often a matter of degree. It is very difficult,
moreover, to decide whether a word or sequence of words is unclear. We can define idioms in
terms of non-equivalence in other languages, so kicking buckets, red fish, and so on, is an idiom
because it cannot be translated directly into French or German. But this will not really work.
France for nurses is garde malade, but while this cannot be directly translated into English it is
quite transparent, obviously means someone who cares for the sick.

4. Collocation and Grammar

Collocation as only one statement about the level of meaning. Others have tried to integrate it
more closely to the level of other linguistic analyzes, to argue, for example, that it can be handled
in the lexical level, which corresponds appropriately and precisely, in theory, in a manner
appropriate to grammar.
There is an attempt to deal with collocations in grammar (or syntax), distinct from phonology
and semantics. It exists in the Chomsky Aspect of syntactic theory. Chomsky is concerned with
the grammar that, given the appropriate set of rules, will produce all and only grammatical
language sentences. What is relevant to semantics is that he is concerned with the restrictions on
events that occur in a sentence, so that we do not allow the idea of cutting trees, I drink bread, he
is afraid that he will come, he has passed the man. In all these examples it is clear that we have
chosen items that, however, do not fit the verb. The last example is clear about the grammar that
the fear does not take that clause, while the curve is an intransitive verb that does not take objects
at all. With two other examples, this is a matter of incompatibility of lexical items of a particular
noun (as subject or thing) with a particular verb. While recording the differences between these
two types, Chomsky proposes to deal with them in a similar way. In both cases he stated, as part
of the verb specification, the environment in which it can occur. So, the trajectory is shown as
not happening with the noun object phrase, and the scare does not occur with the following
clause (or rather it is not shown that it can happen, because the specs will state what is possible,
not what is impossible). Likewise pieces will be shown to require concrete subjects, and drinking
liquid objects this is achieved in terms of components, stating that the subject and the object
must have components (concrete) and (liquid). This is a selection restriction. Any sentences that
do not fit with them are ruled out and grammar will not produce them.
Although it looks very neat, this is quite unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, we have,
again, the problem of the infinite number of components needed. Because if we dismiss all the
anomalous sentences, we must include all relevant information and this is unlimited. Second, the
theory fails to make a distinction between what is grammatical and what is lexical, we will
discuss in more detail. Third, it cannot be accounted for, without much complication, for many
occasions where such selective restrictions are completely degraded. It is possible with verbs to
say, think, etc. As in John think we can drink bread, or with some negative things, for example,
you cannot drink bread. It is clear that we are concerned here with reasonable sense, and that is a
semantic issue lower than the grammar. Because we can be grammatical and remain
unreasonable because Chomsky himself is portrayed with his notoriously colorless green idea of
sleeping with fury. Therefore, it is a mistake to try to handle the semantic relationship between
lexical items in this grammar.
Finally, we may notice that very different grammatical constructions seem to maintain the
same collocation boundaries in them. Collocation does not hold fast, that is, between strong and
strong arguments, but between all related words strong, strength, strongly, strengthen, argue, and
argument. Thus, if the colocational restrictions are handled in the lexicon, the basic lexical items
should not be strong, strong, and other lexemes, but some of the more general items that
incorporate all Firths refer to the related group. Words as a formal distribution. It is by
collocation between scatterings, not words, which we have to worry about.
 SEMANTICS AND GRAMMAR

1. Grammar and Lexicon

The difference made by Henry Sweet in terms of full words and form words. Full words are
basically words that can be handled satisfactorily in the dictionary, while the words in the form
(though always included in the dictionary) should be discussed in the grammar. For the modern
linguist the difference between lexicon and grammar. An American linguist, C. C. Fries, knows
only four parts of speech but fifteen sets of function words. The parts of the speech, are
essentially nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, although Fries deliberately refuse to call them
by these traditional names, the example of each set of function words is, perhaps, do not, very,
and, do, there, why, oh, yes, listen !, please, come on.
Grammar, however, is not limited to the study of the form or function of words. It is related
to categories such as tense, gender, number and syntactic functions such as subject and object.
Some of them may be marked in language with form words, but may also be marked by a
morpheme or even in order of words. Although there is a problem in setting a relevant
grammatical category in any language, it is irrelevant to the semantics of whether the
grammatical category is represented by the word form, morpheme or sequence of words. For
example, we find that English marks the past with a past morpheme usually referred to as -ed.
But there is no similar morpheme to denote the future, this is marked by a verb that will and will
or will be done (may also be indicated by another verbal form with proper adverbs as I fly to
Japan tomorrow and I fly to Japan tomorrow). Other languages may use inflection where English
and language are best known using form words. Thus the English conjunction after, when,
temporarily, if translated by the end of the verb. Language has a very complex case system,
containing not only nominative, accusative, ablative, etc., all of which are familiar from Latin,
but also elective, illustrative, obsessive, essential and others. The latter will translate English
from, to, on, like.
In modern linguistics, the problem of the difference between grammar and lexicon is
often proposed in terms of the difference between unacceptable and distorted sentences for
grammatical reasons, and excluded items for lexical reasons. There is no difficulty in
recognizing aberrant grammatical phrases. An example is the girl is in the garden. It only solves
one grammatical rule, but we can easily find a sentence that does not seem to fit the rules like *
Have I ever grown a tomato? Instead we will set aside for different reasons * the water is fragile,
* the flower goes away. The problem is one of the possible collocations or selection restrictions,
which determine the occurrence of water together with its fragile and flowering by foot.
However, some oppose the view of the question of whether these two types of
restrictions, one grammar, the other is lexical, are in principle different. One argument for
maintaining the difference is that a sentence can be true grammatically, yet at the same time
completely deviant in lexical terms. So Chomsky found the sentence. The colorless green idea
slept loudly, which seems not grammatically flawed, but lexically completely unacceptable. If a
sentence can be in accordance with the grammar, but it is completely lexical, it seems that
grammar and lexicon are different. Previously, incidentally, Carnap has made the same point of
finding a sentence that contains no English words at all but appears to be very grammatical in
poorly muscled Pirots English.
Nevertheless, Chomsky then attempts to deal with selective restrictions as part of the
grammar, as has been noted. The colorless green idea will now become unscientific. The
important question is not whether it is possible to handle such restrictions as part of the grammar,
but is there any justification at all to do so. Because we certainly do not want to say that John
drinking meat is not important in the same sense as * Boys are in the garden. The difference
seems quite clear to us as native speakers of the language, because if we are faced with a
distorted sentence of these two types, our reactions are different. If grammatical rules are broken,
we can, and usually will, correct the sentence, for example, to the Girls in the garden, whereas if
the sentence does not contain grammatical rules. However, where the deviation lies in the
limitation of collocation (selective), ie lexical, we will usually try to understand the sentence by
looking for the context by which its usage can be used. For example, John drinking fish may
seem distorted, until we think of fish soup, and it is not at all difficult to find a poetic (or perhaps
scientific) interpretation because the water is fragile. Even Chomsky's colorless green idea of
deep sleep can (and has) been given an interpretation, which so far has to be taken.
The lexical restriction, which has been suggested (by W. Haas) is not a matter of rule but
a tendency, not of Yes / no, but lacking, when judged in terms of deviation. Some sentences are
clearly unscientific and only to be ruled out or corrected, while others are only in a lexical way
and can, with some imagination, be contextualized. But there are others who are half-way, and
we are not sure whether their deviations are lexical or grammatical.
Suppose, for example, that dog is scattered. It is not just the problem of dog collocation
by spreading, because the spread verbs are usually used only with plural nouns (the dogs are
scattered), or with collective nouns (the herds are scattered). Therefore, it seems that
grammatical rules are broken and that we must turn to Dogs scattered (or the dog is scattered).
But cannot we imagine a dog with a magical power that avoids its enemies is entering into many
parts and spreading over a large area? Indeed we can, so we have found the possibility, if too far,
the contextualization for the Dog is scattered. Therefore, deviations seem to be more lexical than
grammatical. But, in here shows that we are at the boundary of grammar and lexicon.
Trying to contextualize a feeling that may be distorted, we must try to understand it. The
question of whether collocation is likely to occur frequently is the problem. The next section
deals with grammar and meaning and some examples cited in the last section will make things
essentially the same.

2. Formal Grammar
Most traditional grammars assume that grammatical categories are essentially semantic. The
noun is defined as the name of the object, sex is related to the sex, while the plural only means
more than one.
On the other hand, many linguists argue that the grammar must remain distinct from
semantics and that the grammatical category must be fully defined in the form of language, a
feature that is truly observable. It is unfortunate that the term form is also used for form words as
opposed to full words. This is the use of a completely different and far more limited term and
should not be misinterpreted by its use here. One of the earliest statements is in Sapir, but Sapir,
it will be remembered, believes in linguistic relativity, and essentially basically is that, since each
language has a different formal structure, it presents a different world. Bloomfield takes the same
path for different reasons that we must be scientific and that the study of meaning is a weak point
in linguistic theory. Therefore, he insists that formal characteristics, by no means, should be the
starting point of linguistic discussion.
 There are two good arguments to exclude the meaning of the grammar, which is to support
formal grammar. The first is that the meaning is often very vague and the categories of meaning
are not easily delineated. Additionally, because of this obscurity, what appears to be a clear
semantic category is often defined only in terms of formal language features. If, then, the
grammatical category is given a semantic definition, its definition is circular. A very good
example is a definition that is often found in a noun grammar book as a word used to name
something. The difficulty is that we have no way of determining what might happen. With any
value, the definition should be set independently of the language of whatever things can be
named. We found that in English such things include fire, speed, place, intelligence, suffering,
and objects such as tables and chairs. In addition, it includes redness and 'darkness', but not red'
and 'black'. What reasons have we believed that all this exists and do we know that reddish and
darkness are the names of objects, while red and black are not? Then, why the rain refers to
something, while the rain does not? There are several languages in which the words for spring
streams, and others, are essentially verbs so that the literal translation is the river rather than the
river. Then, how do we recognize something? The answer is very simple things are what is
designated by noun in the definition of a noun in terms of naming something thereby completely
circular, the circle arises because we have no non-language way to define something.
The second argument for formal grammar when we can make semantic and grammatical
categories indirectly, often not simultaneously. One of the most famous (or famous) examples is
found in the ratio of grammatical, singular and plural numbers, to numerical sums, for example
wheat and oats. These singular and plural respectively are shown not so by the grain endings
such as the agreement with the verbs of wheat in the barn, the oat in the barn. But in the case of
one and more than one wheat and oat cannot be distinguished. No one would seriously argue that
wheat is a single mass, while oats consist of a collection of individual grains. There are many
other similar examples. Hair is singular in English, but French and Italian have a plural noun,
cheveux, capelli, it is not to be supposed that there is any difference in the way we look at hair.
Similarly gender and sex are distinct in German and French. The German words for young
woman are neuter, Madchen and Fraulein, while the feminine la sentinelle in French may refer to
a strapping young male. In English tense is not directly related to time since the past tense is
used for future time in, for instance, if he came tomorrow.
 It is clear from such an example that the category of the basic grammatical language of a
language should be set independently of its meaning. From here, there may be different systems
in different languages, there is a fact that is very well known by all language students.
Nevertheless once we have established the formal categories, we can proceed to discuss their
meaning (as we shall be doing in the next three sections). We shall then find that there is some
correlation between, for instance, gender and sex, tense and time, grammatical number and
enumeration, though the correlation will never be exact. Thus in French the nouns referring
specifically to females are always feminine, even though feminine nouns may refer to males, and
in English one of the functions of tense is to refer to time. Indeed it is only because there is some
correlation that the labels gender tense, etc., have any usefulness at all, the danger is that we
should think that such labels are semantic definitions.

3. Person and Deixis

The categories of people (my first person, us, your second person, the third person he, he,
them) are often closely related to the number and sex in the form of verbal language. But people
always have a very clear semantic function (unlike gender and, to a lesser extent, sum), the
function is different, that it is deictic, not referring to general semantic features such as quantity
or gender, but on identifiable items in content. Thus, the first person deals with the speaker and
the second person to the listener. The function of each set of people's markers, usually pronouns,
but also the endings of verbs in several languages, may differ from language to language, but can
basically be interpreted in terms of speakers, listeners, and non-participants in written
conversations or correspondence, and this is the foundation of the first, second and third person.
There are some complications. First, languages have plural person markers, and it might be
assumed that these refer simply to several speakers, several hearers and several non participants.
But this is not always so. It is rare for there to be several speakers, except in chorus as, for
instance, a crowd at a football match crying We want another or an impatient group singing Why
are we waiting? We usually refers not to a plurality of speakers (I and I and) but to speaker and
hearer (I and you), speaker and non-participant (I and he/ she) or speaker, hearer and non-
participant (I and you and he/she), plus any further combinations involving more than one
speaker, hearer or non-participant. You may well refer to several hearers, but it may also be used
to refer to hearer (or hearers) plus non-participant (or non-participants) (you and he/she, etc.).
They alone will always refer simply to a number of non-participants. There is in fact a simple
rule with the plural: the pronoun is determined by the highest ranking person included. If I is
included, use we, if it is not but you is, use you; otherwise use they. But some languages make
other distinctions. Not uncommon are distinct forms for inclusive plural I and you' and for
exclusive plural I and he/she.
Secondly, there are some languages that are more polite and less polite. If we take a less
polite form as a basis we can say that in a more polite form, not a single second person, second-
person plural is used, or third person is used as a second substitute. If we treat this as a different
style from the language we should say, on the contrary, with the polly vous style it is singular as
well as plural and Lei is the second or third person. In some cases, the polite system has become
the only system, so English has only a singular and plural form. But, of course, in modern
English it is no longer the matter that you are polite to you, not English does not distinguish
between second person and plural second person.
The deictic category person refers to items that can be identified in the context. There are
other grammatical forms with similar functions. So, a definite article is used to refer to an item
that can be identified in context, where it is clear to the speaker and the listener exactly what the
item is. Thus, although the book may refer to any book, it refers to a particular book that
speakers and listeners can recognize, both spoken of or recognizable in a non-linguistic context,
as seen on the table in front of them. Identification of goods is often only in the best known. The
government will usually refer to our government, the month to month that we see at night.
Similarly the kitchen or garden will refer to our own kitchen or garden, or if we are in someone
else's home, theirs. But this can change if we talk about other governments, other planetary moon
or kitchen and other home gardens. What matters is that the item can be identified in a context
without misunderstanding.
The function of the article usually does not occur with the name (proper noun). The exact
nouns such as Anna, James, etc., are used only to identify a particular person, and his article will
be excessive. However, even the right noun is sometimes used in an un-unique sense, so we can
talk about three Anna, which means three people by the name of Anna. We can even refer
someone to one of his aspects, for example, she is not the Anna I know. This is a purely
grammatically formal point and has no semantic meaning.
 It is interesting that if the item becomes uniquely identified, the article will fall. Thus we
now have Parliament, not Parliament and, more surprisingly, perhaps, the interest rate of the
Bank and not the Bank's interest rate. Since there is only one of each, the noun phrase has, in
essence, become a name, a proper noun.
Another trick is demonstration and this. No less important is the place to advertise here,
there, etc., and word of the present time, right away, etc. It also does not refer to a particular type
of place or time, but usually to an identifiable place or time. With relationships with speakers and
listeners and, less frequently, for the time and place identified in the discourse.
What is important about deictics is that they are accustomed to referring to items in
context, in terms of both linguistic and non-linguistic contexts. Then, the third person he may use
to refer to someone who has been spoken in a linguistic context or may be used to refer to
someone who is actually present. Similarly, articles can inevitably refer to something that can be
recognized either from a linguistic context or a non-linguistic context or even from the world at
large, as long as its identity is unquestioned. Even markers of time and place are so used. Now
and here refer more often than not now and here about time and place of speech, but can be
found in terms of time and place mentioned in the discourse.
The moral is clear if we are looking for a context to express the meaning that we should
look at the linguistic and non-linguistic contexts.